POLL: Where Should Humans Land on the Moon Next?

[doublehelix]

On Saturday (Sept. 18), the moon will dominate the attention of skywatchers around the world during International Observe the Moon Night. Only 12 men have ever seen the moon up close – the dozen Apollo astronauts who walked on its surface.

Cast your vote on where explores should observe the moon up close from next.

More resources:

NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Gets New Moon Mission
Global Swoon Over the Moon Set For Saturday
Moonstruck: A September Showcase for Lunar Lovers
Gallery — Amazing Moon Photos
10 Coolest New Moon Discoveries

 

[zwheel]

There is an option missing!

How about the lunar caves?

 

[adrenalynn]

A refresher of where we've been:

From: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/mapca ... index.html

I think it's important to remember where we have been...

The far side of the moon is fascinating with its lack of Maria. That said - I'm not sure what the science value would be there. So I'd have to vote for the poles.

But honestly - we've been there. Nice place. Probably wouldn't want to build a house there or anything, but it was nice to visit. Let's get on with it. Go to Mars. I want human bootprints on the ground in ten years. Start now. Going back to the moon is just a waste of resources that could be dedicated to putting human explorers on the surface (and caves!) of Mars.

The moon is "safe", but not ultimately rewarding. We need to break out of "safe" and do something important.

 

[GetMeOffThisPlanet]

What a silly question to ask when Dear Leader and Co. have decided that we aren't going to the moon anytime soon...

 

[nubsyn]

Where? Follow the water. This will allow us to set up a permanent post. The dark side would only be a one time trip because there is no energy or resources for a self-sustained permanent base. First set up base, then explore the darkside (if you dare).

My other answer to this is... anywhere SpaceX will land us!

 

[zwheel]

That Lunar exploration map looks impressive with legends that are so many times larger than the actual spaces explored. What is the actual percentage of land area where people have actually been? I think the been there done that mantra reminds me of various sci fi series where the protagonists visit some world for the duration of a 1/2 hour show and then leave to go explore elsewhere never to return as though you can really understand a whole world that quickly. Imagine if those points of exploration were on Earth and that was all we had explored?

Maybe somewhere around some other star there is a world waiting to be discovered which is so Earth like we can live there without space suits. Even if we discovered it today it would be generations before we could get there. Meanwhile any offworld bases we build will be on barren, inhospitable rocks. Yes, Mars is just another baren inhospitable rock just like the moon. Why should we go there before building a permanent presence on the moon?

The moon has some water. Mars has some water. both are mainly at the poles and in both cases it is questionable if there is enough to support a colony anywhere but the poles. There might be but we aren't sure yet. Score - even

Both have caves. Score - still even

The moon has no air. Mars does have air but it isn't anything that can support life or otherwise be useful. What it can do however is whip up planetary dust storms. Score - Moon

The moon is closer

Mars has more gravity - more expensive for fuel but it might be healthier for the astronauts. We don't have enough experience with reduced yet significant gravity and it's effects on the human body yet. Our only long term studies have been either with 1G or very close to 0G.

Let's set up a base on the easier world to reach, the moon and see what it's level of gravity does to the human body. We can relive the Apolo moon landings with a boots in the dirt followed by decades of abandonment on Mars after the moon base is established.

 

[adrenalynn]

How do you propose funding this base?

There is still a pretty decent chance of alien life on mars, the more we see on the ground the better that looks for the sub-terrain. A chance for significant discovery.

The moon's a dead rock with little of value.

 

[SpaceForAReason]

If significant resources can be found on the moon, it would certainly be worth our time to go there. To date, we do not have enough concrete information to make a decision. The only thing we can do now to put the question to rest is to go there in person and prove that the moon has enough water or minerals to make it interesting.

Before any serious surveys can be done, it is important to know what the goals are. Do we intend to setup refineries for fuel and create opportunities for contractors to gather and refine that resource for use? Do we intend to do the same for any iron or other mineral deposits we can find there. Can the contractors make a profit?

Once those questions are answered we can go to the Moon again.

As for Mars? Well, we will see...

 

[Starwarden]

Cases for going to Mars are being made, and attacked, but if we stick to the question in the survey, I would say that the poles are the best.

The case laid out by nubsyn for not going to the far side is not valid. There is no "Darkside" of the moon. At least not as a permanent factor. As virtually all of us should know the moon receives light on both sides while it orbits the earth, the far side is simply pointing away from the earth at all times, not from the sun.

The major problem with the poles is the more challenging aspect of landing on a surface at the poles. It takes much more fuel and is more hazardous because of that.

 

[Gravity_Ray]

I used to think the poles due to maximum sun light. But now I say, near a hydrogen cache or ice cache, since water is more important than power. If there happens to be a tunnel or caves there then BINGO! Got yourself radiation protection as well.

Solar power is good, but I think nuclear electric is even better as a power source.

 

[LKD]

"How about the lunar caves?"

Agreed.

 

[crazyeddie]

I chose to go for the poles, but my favorite destination would be the Alpine Valley. It's always been my favorite lunar feature, along with Plato, Sinus Iridium, the Lunar Apennines, and the Straight Wall.

 

[Windbourne]

I am surprised that anybody would pick anything but the poles. If we go anyplace but there, then we can not build a base. Why? Nights are too long. WIth nuke power on the ground, or without beaming power down from a sat, it would not be possible to stay there for 2-3 weeks. OTH, on the poles, we only have to deal with short storage. In fact, if done right, there would be even less storage. Simply put towers up on a ridge so that it can receive solar power.

And if we get private space stations and private fixed costs launch going, then they will be quickly at the moon. WHy? To get the best spots for solar, as well as ability to bury a station. Few will want to stay on the lunar surface for 6-12 months due to radiation. In addition, by being buried, it solves the issue of thermal control. Once underground, say 10 feet (3 meters), then the temps in the ground will be fairly constant. So, you just provide heat from the solar and you are set. China will likely chose to do the same thing. After all, they have loads of Russian and American R&D to support this.

 

[onesmallstep]

How do you propose funding this base?

The same way you are going to fund your Mars boondoggle.

here is still a pretty decent chance of alien life on mars, the more we see on the ground the better that looks for the sub-terrain. A chance for significant discovery.

So we go 40 million miles to study some microbes? The public will love that!

The moon's a dead rock with little of value.

It's mis-information like this that causes the public to lose interest in space exploration and keeps the politicians twisting in the wind.

One would think that humanity would find it enticing that not only did Apollo get to the moon, they also found it to be loaded with valuable resources such as titanium, aluminum, helium 3, and even oxygen entrained in the soil. Plus, there is an abundance of uninterrupted, unfettered solar energy. Everything is there, made to order, to begin some level of industrialization. Now we know that it even has significant quantities of water. What a discovery!....just next door there is a golden opportunity to exploit new resources, a new land of milk and honey. But all the uninformed public sees are rocks.

There was to be no new frontier, no lunar mining operation, no more boldly going to a new place just because we can. It costs too much we are told, and no one gives a crap about going back. We can get our titanium and aluminum right here, for a nickle cheaper.

There was to be no public or political interest in any long-term investments to move some of the more environmental un-friendly industries (such as mining for metals), off of the earth to a place that is already dead. No long-term goals of turning the moon into the Earth's industrial park, thus helping to reverse some of the environmental damage and help bring the Earth closer to a near pristine condition.

We're actually lucky to have such a place nearby that affords us that opportunity. Another key benefit of Apollo is that it demonstrated that the moon is a reachable place, it is real estate, it is the eighth continent with its own unique set of resources that can be used and exploited for the benefit of man...and it is only three days away.

But the lunar mining operations were not to be, and probably will never be in my lifetime, or the lifetime of my kids or grandkids. Perhaps the shortsighted, never look past the next election mentality of most politicians will continue until the Earth dies a slow death due to over industrialization, global warming and whatever other nasty things we humans do to it. All because it is the easier, cheaper option and it is too hard and expensive to begin any investment in moving these things off-planet to a place that is already dead and doesn't care how badly you treat it or pollute it.

What did Kennedy say?..."We choose to go to the moon not because it is easy, but because it is hard." Well, apparently going back is too hard after all.

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

Glad to see we're all thinking sensibly here. The poles are by far the best choice for a long term outpost. Lots of water, lots of sunlight. The dark side will be pretty interesting to explore but it won't be able to support a "self sufficient" base. The equator was picked as an "easy" landing area for the Apollo missions, and while I think they will go to those sites to honor the Apollo missions the most logical place is at the poles.

 

[adrenalynn]

Again - the cost of extracting that?

When cost > return, then it's of little value.

Building a permanent or semi-permanent base is a heck of a lot more expensive than a round-trip to Mars. Especially with a good chance to answer the biggest question of all time for human existence.
Doing something BECAUSE it's hard is stupid. Doing something because it has value is SMART.

 

[MeteorWayne]

The larger question is of course (ignored by the poll) should we land on the moon again.

As for the subject of the poll, sheesh, can we wait until the data collected during the LRO mission exploration phase (which ended today, BTW) be digested and analyzed? That was the whole purpose of the first year of the mission, the data collection part of which ended TODAY!!!!

What a stupid time for such a poll!!! :evil:

Ask again in a year when the journal articles start to come out. :roll: :roll:

Wayne

 

[General_Kenobi]

Thing is if we just go & stay, we can do it all. In probably just a few years, too. In spite of what the current HMFIC says, I think most of us feel there is still a lot of new science to be done up there. Plus, is there a better place to practice living on Mars?

 

[marsbug]

The larger question is of course (ignored by the poll) should we land on the moon again.

As for the subject of the poll, sheesh, can we wait until the data collected during the LRO mission exploration phase (which ended today, BTW) be digested and analyzed? That was the whole purpose of the first year of the mission, the data collection part of which ended TODAY!!!!

What a stupid time for such a poll!!! :evil:

Ask again in a year when the journal articles start to come out. :roll: :roll:

Wayne

Fair point about this poll jumping the gun a bit, but if you don't mind my asking; do you mean the larger issue is should we land on the moon again, or do you mean the larger issue is should we land people on the moon again? Because there are a lot of lunar mysteries, and a lot of things it could teach us about the history of this solar system, and about our suns history. For me the question is; are people needed or would the job be done better by robots? The idea that it isn't worth going back at all just flies in the face of the unanswered, or half answered, questions still up there!

 

[MeteorWayne]

Sorry I wasn't clear. There is a valid debate about where the next manned mission should go. That is what I was referring to. For TONS of discussion on the subject, see the Space Business and Technology forum.

There's no doubt that exploration should continue on our nearest neighbor See the LRO thread today in Missions and Launches. WOWWWWWWWWWWWWW!

 

[3DBME]

The question should be where WILL humans land next. The Chinese have made doing so a national priority. and they are going about it in a methodical and logical way. The next lunar orbiter that will fly later this year will orbit much lower than the previous with a higher resolution camera with the stated aim of finding a suitable spot for a soft lander. After that a series of sample return missions is scheduled. All to determine the location of a manned base. The first one may only be for two people, but you can bet that the discovery of polar ice will be taken into consideration.

The United States is broke, and will not be going back to the moon. Unless it can beg a ride off of someone. Plus our President has publicly stated that the moon is no longer an option for U.S. space exploration.

So keep an eye on the Chinese. There's going to do it for real.

 

[Gravity_Ray]

The question should be where WILL humans land next. The Chinese have made doing so a national priority. and they are going about it in a methodical and logical way. The next lunar orbiter that will fly later this year will orbit much lower than the previous with a higher resolution camera with the stated aim of finding a suitable spot for a soft lander. After that a series of sample return missions is scheduled. All to determine the location of a manned base. The first one may only be for two people, but you can bet that the discovery of polar ice will be taken into consideration.

The United States is broke, and will not be going back to the moon. Unless it can beg a ride off of someone. Plus our President has publicly stated that the moon is no longer an option for U.S. space exploration.

So keep an eye on the Chinese. There's going to do it for real.

I will be more than happy if/when the Chinese land on the Moon. It will be a wonderful day when human foot prints are placed on the Moon again.

I hope after the Chinese, the Indians land there as well. Hopefully the Indians can get there with the Russians. It would be a great day for humanity when more countries return to the Moon.

However, I suspect more than likely an American company will be the next entity to land humans on the Moon. My vote goes for Bigelow.

 

[Windbourne]

Gravity Ray,
I believe that it will private enterprise first, assuming that we can get Congress to quit turning NASA into a jobs bill. The R/D that was proposed was about getting private space going and getting it to the moon.
1) Building multiple rocket arch. that will support both Human and Cargo.
2) Building a tug/fuel depot. That enable us to move cargo around in LEO, but also to push it to BEO.
3) multiple inflatable space stations, that can also be used as bases.
4) multiple vtvl craft.

That is what is needed to not just land on the moon, but to have a sustained effort there.

 

[gordon_flash]

It depends, really, on the purpose of an individual mission. If the mission is purely for scientific return then areas of the moon suspected to be active should be investigated (Alphonsus, Aristarchis, Linne, etc.). If the mission is to do a ground-truth investigation of ice at the poles, then the poles should be visited. The possibility of lava tubes should be looked at, as well, for (safe) caverns for long-term missions. Areas identified as being along lines of change (look at false color images showing the boundary between Mare Tranquilitatis and Mare Serentatis, for example) would be prime sites. Alas, however, many of these sites could be investigated with unmanned rovers just as easily (though not as effectively) for pennies on the dollar.

 

[jcreed]

While many of the above fulminate pro- or con- on guvmint-funded programs, Mars-or-bust, hippity-hop to asteroids or whatever, the private sector is quietly taking care of business...Bigelow's already dusted off Von Braun's incredibly well thought-out Project Horizon and have figured out how many BA-330's its going to take to set up shop....watch for efforts to modify or repeal the Outer Space Treaty which currently bans private ownership or exploitatation of off-Earth real estate..."possession is 9/10ths of the law"...if they get there first, who's going to fight their claim?...and since they took the risk and initiative after the public sector gave up, maybe they deserve to keep their little piece of Heaven.

Will Walmart and Mickey-D's be far behind?